MC:"At the moment, I can prove the existence of The Universal Law of Organization only by its concrete effects, by an experimental and inductive-deductive way, as in many other
cases of discoveries in an incipient stage."
You mean you have some proof that your law works in a few cases. Good. Now prove it works in all cases. And since your discovery is 20 years old already, this is not what one would call an incipient stage.
MC:"The fact that in all systems working in univers there are only two loops, each loop having three managing-functions I showed, isn`t "a conjecture, based mainly on nothing", but is patently a scientific conclusion based on concrete numerous experiments and observations.."
Well, as I said, you can mathematically formulate your theory. And as such, I would refer you back to your highschool math manuals for the definition and applications of mathematical proofs. Try the manuals before 1990.
MC:"Nature speak to us, either denying/confirming a conjecture, or even by images."
This would be the first time nature has spoken to management!
MC:"If you come a magnet near a iron filings particles, you`ll see this particles sit always on the same curve linies: the magnetic field`s force linies, revealing their existence."
And yet there is a long way from seeing the iron fillings in magnetic field to the Biot-Savart laws or to Maxwell's laws.
MC:"In the same way, if you come the systemic-cybernetic vision near all the principales concepts of organizing and managing activities, this concepts will sit logicaly along two feed-back informational loops, into always the
same system-sketch: The Universal Model of Organization. "
"Near" all doesn't mean "universal" And once again, your statements do not stand for proof.
MC:"Based on my long theoretical and practical experience in the matter, I think there is no alrternative as complete as this model!"
This is very nice, but it still doesn't count as a proof of your statement.
MC:"After you`ll see this model, you`ll be repossessed by its "simplicity in complexity", by its clarity, by its general scientific character."
I will be "repossesed" much better by a proof! And I am quite sure you've already heard this before:"Verba volant, scripta manent".
MC:"In the "Preface" of my book "CHESS AND CYBERNETICS" (1986), page 12, Professor Ph. D. Engineer Dolphi Drimer, member of academies
and of other international scientific organizations, International Chess Master, the future Rector of The Ecological
University of Bukarest"
Bwa ha, ha! Old Dolphi is your reviewer! Oh boy. He is now an expert in organization and management too, isn't he? My advice is to actually get a good reviewer, someone hwo actually has some knowledge in the appropriate field (that would be probably economics, so try the ASE). Dolphi is just a crackerjack. It's fun to talk to him, I have to admit, but he is the epithome of an oxymoron. Especially in the international environment.
MC:"I think this model is a law of nature, an universal law, because it can be identified in all systems that work in univers, in microcosm and in macrocosm alike."
What you think might be interesting, but does not constitute a proof for your claims of universality.
MC:"You can see by yourself his logical governing force if you want to build a system having a goal for you. If you have in your hand this model, you don`t avoid its structure and its work if you want that your builded system have a maximum
efficiency for long time. Nothing of The Universal Law of Organization can be omited, nothing must be added moreover."
A 2-loop system is traditionally unstable, so I will stick for the time being with a simple 1-loop one, which is easier to control.
MC:"Paraphrasing you, unless you or someoane else doesn`t offer a credible alternative to my theory, this theory can be valable and can be teach in schools taking into consideration
its high proved practical value in systems analysis and design, in organizing and managing of all kinds of activities."
Constantin, it doesn't work that way. If you make a claim, the burden of proof IS ON YOU. It is for you to prove that you are right, not for others to prove you wrong. Maybe a more qualified reviewer could enlighten you in this matter.
Until then, your claim remains unsubstantiated in the form you stated it. And BTW, why don;t you apply it for your marketing purposes? According to your claims it should be sucessful.
